castle_clashfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Minotaur Chieftain/@comment-189.174.0.124-20140723042613/@comment-203.34.148.128-20140811055408
You would make a terrible parent. Look at all your statements... 'Meth is a drug, Minotaur is…'nevermind'. It’s quite literally NOT like saying that, even in the least. You just made that up, to be honest.' 'Meth is addicting and kills people right after it has the kindness to ruin their lives. Minotaur? He might be ugly but, what…the…hell…are…you…on about?' You're basically saying 'You are wrong and I am right, because...REASONS'. You dismiss those statements by portraying your ridicule to them, which, if you're honest with yourself, is reflective of your inability to discuss them properly. This argument was started by OP's statement of exasperation at IGG's greed. YOU are arguing against that. YOU have the burden of proof. YOU have to explain why you don't agree, not just calling us 12 year olds and emphasisng your ridicule. You're referring to the meth analogy as if minotaur is compared to meth on a material basis, when it is only compared for its addiction. Meth is addictive to an abusive level...so is Castle Clash. Your claim to a greater understanding of the market and your claim of stated arguments not addressing your argument is not followed by rational justification, just your REASONS. Let's have a close look at them. Here's your attempt at side-stepping my thesis. 'Bad start. Never said that. I said there IS NO FAULT. Read again. Why are we saying it’s someone’s fault? I’m not conceding that something wrong was done, so why are we talking about fault?' You said that 'there is NO FAULT', which is a broader version of 'there is NO FAULT lying on IGG' (the latter is a subset). Just because I said that it is IGG's fault, I am not insinuating that you said the fault was on someone else. You said there is no fault...I say there IS fault, and it lies on IGG. That is the THESIS of my argument. Following this is your attempted sidestepping of my false free will argument. 'None of which indicates that I’m wrong. You just changed the subject, and not very gracefully. Not one thing you said invalidates my point, it's quite remarkable.' OK Mr. Logical. Once again, you address my argument by saying that it's not addressing your argument. You provide no insight as to why you don't think it lines up, you just brush it aside. Where did you learn to think, because I think it's 'quite remarkable'. Now let me NOT make the mistake that you made. I will discuss why I think my argument lines up against yours. That paragraph of mine you brushed aside is regarding why I think IGG's business models is the very opposite of free will. You suggested that there is free will with the model, how 'anyone can do anything they want'. I was talking about how IGG uses an addiction mechanic to encourage spending. Forcing someone to spend while you put them on a mentally vulnerable state IS NOT FREE WILL. '''If you've read this Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/apr/01/candy-crush-saga-app-brain. It outlines some of the things a game can do to your brain. With Castle Clash and IGG, it's EVEN WORSE. Their whole gem-rolling mechanic, for example, is based on gambling and intermittent rewards. If you don't realise this, you're '''fooled. That is why I outlined more specific elements of their business model, i.e. the Smash events, the holiday gem sales. Games should reward you for playing on a holiday instead of doing something holiday-related, not use the excuse of festivity to encourage more spending. You just said 'Yep' to how your argument hinges on the existence of a free will. Then you go on to say how an argument on how there isn't free will does not 'indicate that you're wrong'. Wut? The very core of argument is that IGG's exploits are not natural, and not healthy. They did not simply create an 'awesome game', and people do not spend out of adoration of this 'awesome game'. They spend out of psychological factors which hook them. I think you must be a victim. There are so many other holes in your argument, but I'll just conclude with one more. Your whole 'free market of Rolls Royce' idea. It amused me, and I'll tell you why (which again, you didn't do for my arguments). Rolls Royce creates a car. It is an accessory in this game called 'Life'. Now, having a Rolls Royce does not give you an advantage over someone without a Rolls Royce in terms of function. On the other hand, the Mino is an 'accessory' in this game called 'Castle Clash'. Having it makes you tenfolds more efficient in many areas of the game. What makes it worse is that not everyone can pay for it. A better analogy for that is if the government passes a law that only lets those who pay a heavy tax wear clothes. Now, people not only have to buy the clothes, but they have pay even more to fully access their rights. To make it worse, the government puts up all these advertisements of people being warm and stylish with their full outfits, while the miserable non-taxpayers walk the streets butt naked. To summarise, Castle Clash is one of the highest payment-per-capita 'free game' out there for the LEAST EFFORT PUT INTO THE GAME. Some of the best ingame transaction games do not have this high of a rake-in. This is because they abuse the gambling mechanic. I didn't have to make this post. You forced me.